{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-08", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:711432", "proof": "sha256:452d8146a6c2579623bcf122d934981073ea21c75e4f10167ff1028e64055b40", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "2026 IL App (1st) 252283", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SECOND DIVISION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "August 31, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_5", "para_6" ] }, { "title": "IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT", "paragraphs": [ "para_9", "para_10" ] }, { "title": "O R D E R", "paragraphs": [ "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from", "paragraphs": [ "para_37", "para_38" ] }, { "title": "23L4666", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Honorable", "paragraphs": [ "para_41" ] }, { "title": "Judge Presiding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59" ] }, { "title": "However, in an affidavit filed during these proceedings, O’Shea stated that Murphy “became", "paragraphs": [ "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_68" ] }, { "title": "Your authorization has been terminated, as you have been notified multiple times. I", "paragraphs": [ "para_70" ] }, { "title": "Strongin and Wiesman, I will be filing a police report today and moving for a preliminary", "paragraphs": [ "para_72", "para_73" ] }, { "title": "Liliana O’Shea", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "General Counsel", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Illinois Orthopedic Network, PLLC.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79" ] }, { "title": "I don’t know what you’re accusing me of doing; what am I blackmailing for and trying", "paragraphs": [ "para_81" ] }, { "title": "I consider this escalation on your end [to be] extremely ill intentioned. It feels", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86" ] }, { "title": "Information] data from the secure server per your request and our BAA agreement). Since", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Friday at 4:47pm when I was first given written notice to comply by 8pm on Monday, I", "paragraphs": [ "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_92" ] }, { "title": "Stephen.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97" ] }, { "title": "You were notified verbally months ago of your termination. You have failed to comply", "paragraphs": [ "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "I have a signed affidavit from [ION’s chief financial officer] relating the facts of what", "paragraphs": [ "para_105" ] }, { "title": "TRO that [will] be filed tomorrow morning, unless you comply with the following by 5pm", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CST today.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113" ] }, { "title": "Liliana O’Shea", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_116" ] }, { "title": "General Counsel", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Illinois Orthopedic Network, PLLC.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159" ] }, { "title": "Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183" ] }, { "title": "Adams, 100 Ill. App. 3d 314, 317 (1981); O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 24 (the", "paragraphs": [ "para_185", "para_186" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_188", "para_189", "para_190" ] }, { "title": "(2006); Tallman v. Hanssen, 427 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Beeck v. Kapalis, 302", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "The appellees respond that Murphy misinterprets the privilege and that O’Shea’s e-mail is", "paragraphs": [ "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "1999) (concerning attorney letters that were “nothing more than demand letters, alleging", "paragraphs": [ "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326" ] }, { "title": "App. 3d at 872, that a privilege which must be “narrow[ly]” construed did not encompass an", "paragraphs": [ "para_328", "para_329", "para_330" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_332", "para_333", "para_334" ] }, { "title": "Atkinson, 369 Ill. App. 3d 828; and Scarpelli v. McDermott Will & Emery, 2018 IL App (1st)", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341" ] }, { "title": "Eleventh Street Loftominium Ass’n v. Wabash Loftominium, L.L.C., 376 Ill. App. 3d 185, 188", "paragraphs": [ "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368" ] }, { "title": "ION’s owner, Strongin, confirmed at his deposition that ION wanted to stop Murphy’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449" ] }, { "title": "1-25-2283", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "2026 IL App (1st) 252283", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "SECOND DIVISION", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "August 31, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "No. 1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Justices Ellis and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "O R D E R", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "¶ 1 Held: Attorney’s absolute litigation privilege to make statements about potential lawsuit", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "barred defamation claim; summary judgment affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "¶ 2 Data consultant Stephen Murphy sued his former client’s general counsel, Liliana O’Shea,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "contending that she defamed him with an e-mail warning that it was criminal to continue accessing", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "the former client’s confidential database and would provoke the company to pursue injunctive", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "relief. The company, Illinois Orthopedic Network, PLLC (ION), is a Chicago-based medical care", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "network that specializes in anesthesiology, pain management, hand surgery, otolaryngology, and", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "plastic surgery. O’Shea addressed her e-mail directly to Murphy and ION’s owners, Marc Strongin", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "STEPHEN MURPHY,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "ILLINOIS ORTHOPEDIC NETWORK, PLLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "LILIANA O’SHEA, and TERRIS MURPHY,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Appeal from", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "the Circuit Court", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "of Cook County", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "23L4666", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Honorable", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "John J. Tully, Jr.,", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Judge Presiding", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "and Irvin M. Wiesman. The trial judge entered summary judgment against Murphy, on the basis", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "of the absolute litigation privilege that protects attorneys from civil liability for statements which", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "they make in the course of representation. In the circuit court, Murphy had legal counsel. Here, he", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "appeals pro se.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "¶ 3 Murphy was a data consultant for ION while his then-wife, Terris Murphy, was the", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "company’s chief executive officer. In March 2022, ION verbally ended its association with", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "Murphy and disabled his access to ION’s servers. In July 2022, Terris Murphy filed for dissolution", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "of marriage. It is undisputed that after Murphy’s logon credentials were deactivated, he used", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "someone else’s credentials to access ION’s servers. In addition, he did not relinquish the passwords", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "that ION needed to access its Power BI platform and Microsoft Azure server. ION personnel", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "exchanged phone calls, texts and e-mails with Murphy about the circumstances. Three of the", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "e-mails that O’Shea and Murphy exchanged are pertinent to this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "¶ 4 O’Shea sent an e-mail response to Murphy on Monday, August 22, 2022, at 10:32 a.m.", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "which she marked “Importance: High.” The subject line indicated that she was continuing a", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "conversation about a text message. The text message was not included in the record on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "However, in an affidavit filed during these proceedings, O’Shea stated that Murphy “became", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "extremely aggressive after being told [he] would no longer receive any work from ION,” “kept", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "pushing back on ION’s decision,” and “refus[ed] to tell ION how he accessed [its] data unless he", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "was compensated for the information.” When deposed in connection with this litigation, Strongin", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "(one of ION’s two owners) testified that after “[w]e had a discussion about Stephen inappropriately", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "accessing our data, *** we agreed that this e-mail was the next logical step.” O’Shea wrote:", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "“Stephen,", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Your authorization has been terminated, as you have been notified multiple times. I", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "have reviewed the correspondence you have sent and it is clear that it is blackmail. Per Drs.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Strongin and Wiesman, I will be filing a police report today and moving for a preliminary", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "injunction.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Sincerely,", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Liliana O’Shea", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "General Counsel", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "Illinois Orthopedic Network, PLLC.”", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "¶ 5 Later that same day, at 12:35 p.m., Murphy answered O’Shea, but Murphy added ION’s", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "two owners to the e-mail’s distribution list:", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "“General Counsel, Marc, Irv:", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "I don’t know what you’re accusing me of doing; what am I blackmailing for and trying", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "to extort? What is the injunction for?", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "I consider this escalation on your end [to be] extremely ill intentioned. It feels", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "intentionally provoking and has caused me extreme distress (you all know my personal", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "situation).", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "I’ve been trying to clarify the contract we had between us, the signing authorities, etc[.],", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "so that I may comply with your request (I’m currently deleting all [patient Protected Health", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "Information] data from the secure server per your request and our BAA agreement). Since", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "Friday at 4:47pm when I was first given written notice to comply by 8pm on Monday, I", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "have not received clear answers to my fair questions.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "Sincerely,", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "Stephen.”", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "¶ 6 According to O’Shea’s affidavit, she used the “reply all” option when composing the", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "response that she sent to Murphy at 1:53 p.m., which meant that the recipients included both of", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "ION’s owners.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "“Stephen,", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "You were notified verbally months ago of your termination. You have failed to comply", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "and have (1) threatened to engage in a data breach, and (2) stated that ‘it will cost [ION]’", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "[to learn] *** how you gained access to the server (after you knew your access had been", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "terminated). Your behavior constitutes theft pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/16-1, constituting a", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "felony, and punishable by a minimum of six years in jail and a maximum of thirty years in", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "prison, if convicted, along with a $25,000 fine.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "I have a signed affidavit from [ION’s chief financial officer] relating the facts of what", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "has transpired in the last few days[,] including your threats, that I intend[] to attach to the", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "TRO that [will] be filed tomorrow morning, unless you comply with the following by 5pm", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "CST today.”", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "¶ 7 In the next paragraph of her e-mail, O’Shea listed certain demands, including that Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "sign documents, turn over ION’s passwords for its Power BI and Microsoft Azure accounts, and", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "disclose how he had connected to ION’s server even though his credentials had been disabled five", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "months earlier. O’Shea’s e-mail concluded:", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "“I look forward to hearing from you and hope this issue can be resolved amicably.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Sincerely,", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Liliana O’Shea", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "General Counsel", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "Illinois Orthopedic Network, PLLC.”", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "¶ 8 Murphy complied with all of ION’s demands. The next day, August 23, 2022, at 9:18 a.m.,", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "O’Shea sent Murphy a short follow-up e-mail stating, “Since you provided all the information", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "requested, we will not be filing any charges.”", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "¶ 9 This concluded ION’s disagreement with Murphy.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "¶ 10 Nine months later, however, Murphy began this action. He still did not deny engaging in", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "the objectionable access and retention of ION’s data resources. Nevertheless, he directed Count I", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "at O’Shea and the ION corporation, contending that it was false and defamatory for the general", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "counsel to characterize his conduct as felony theft. Count II was a contractual interference claim", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "directed at Terris Murphy, whom he alleged instigated the end of his relationship with ION, in", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "order to “gain leverage” in their “contentious divorce.” Murphy did not describe or attach a", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "contract. The circuit court granted the defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss the complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "as conclusory (see 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)) because Murphy did not factually indicate that", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "a false statement had been published to a third party and did not factually identify a contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "¶ 11 In an amended pleading, Murphy restated his allegations and added a list of tasks that he", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "performed for ION as a data consultant at the rate of $80 per hour between 2018 and 2022.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "¶ 12 O’Shea, ION, and Terris Murphy sought summary judgment on the amended complaint on", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "grounds that there was no false statement, no publication, no contract, and no interference. After", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "oral argument and supplemental briefing, the circuit court entered an order granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "judgment as to Count II because Murphy’s written response conceded that his contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "interference claim against Terris Murphy was not viable. The order also indicated the court was", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "denying summary judgment as to Count I. That order was entered on Friday, August 22, 2025. The", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "following Monday, August 25, 2025, however, the circuit court entered a separate order on its own", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "motion in which it granted summary judgment as to Count I on the basis of O’Shea’s absolute", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "litigation privilege.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "¶ 13 At this point in the dispute, Murphy began representing himself.", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "¶ 14 He filed a pro se motion to reconsider summary judgment as to Count I only, which the", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "circuit court denied. Then he filed a pro se emergency second motion to reconsider summary", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "judgment as to Count I only and grant leave to replead, which the circuit court denied. This pro se", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "appeal, which was timely filed within 30 days of the order denying the first motion to reconsider,", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "followed. Murphy’s appeal is limited to the orders about his defamation claim against O’Shea and", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "ION.", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "¶ 15 Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "affidavits on file, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show that there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Varela ex rel. Nelson v. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital of Chicago, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 714, 722 (2006).", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Id. Additionally, we are to use de novo", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "review when examining whether the attorney litigation privilege applies in a cause. Popp v. O’Neil,", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "313 Ill. App. 3d 638, 642 (2000) (this is a question of law).", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "¶ 16 Illinois generally follows the attorney litigation privilege set out in § 586 of the", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "“An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding.”", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "¶ 17 See Popp, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 642 (quoting § 586); O’Callaghan v. Satherlie, 2015 IL App", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "(1st) 142152, ¶ 27 (observing that Illinois courts generally follow § 586 but are not limited to the", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Restatement’s terms and may apply privilege outside of defamation claims where counsel’s actions", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "are in the client’s interests and pertinent to representation).", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "¶ 18 The privilege applies to an attorney-at-law’s out-of-court communications so long as the", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "communication pertains to proposed, ongoing, or completed litigation or quasi-judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "proceedings. Golden v. Mullen, 295 Ill. App. 3d 865, 870 (1997) (holding that the established", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "privilege encompassed post-litigation communication). The “pertinency requirement” is not", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "strictly construed, however, and immunity will attach even to defamatory communications that are", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "not about a specific litigation issue. Id.; Popp, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 642; O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "(1st) 142152, ¶ 25. As long as the communication relates to the litigation and is in furtherance of", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "the client’s interests, the pertinency requirement is met. Golden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 870;", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 29; Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill. App. 3d 686, 706", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "(2000). Furthermore, all doubts about pertinency are resolved in the attorney’s favor. Golden, 295", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Ill. App. 3d at 870; Popp, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 642; O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 25.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "¶ 19 The general public policy underlying the “privilege is to secure to attorneys as officers of", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.” Libco Corp. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "Adams, 100 Ill. App. 3d 314, 317 (1981); O’Callaghan, 2015 IL App (1st) 142152, ¶ 24 (the", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "privilege furthers “an attorney’s need to fully and fearlessly communicate with [the] client”). “An", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "attorney must be at liberty to candidly and zealously represent [a] client in communications to", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "- 8 -", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "potential opposing parties in litigation or other proceedings without the specter of civil liability for", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "[the] statements clouding [the attorney’s] efforts.” Atkinson v. Affronti, 369 Ill. App. 3d 828, 833", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "(2006); Tallman v. Hanssen, 427 N.W.2d 868, 870 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Beeck v. Kapalis, 302", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "N.W.2d 90, 97 (Iowa 1981) (immunity “encourage[s] the open resolution of disputes by removing", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "the cloud of later suits”)). “[T]he ends to be gained by permitting *** zealous advocacy[ ] outweigh", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "the harm which may be done to the reputation of some persons in the course of judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "proceedings.” Id. at 870.", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "¶ 20 The privilege is an absolute one rather than a qualified or conditional privilege given that", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "it immunizes an attorney from liability for publishing defamatory matter regardless of the", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "attorney’s purpose for the publication, belief in its truth or even knowledge of its falsity. Popp,", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "313 Ill. App. 3d at 642; Golden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 870 (the privilege “affords complete immunity,", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "irrespective of the attorney’s knowledge of the statement’s falsity or the attorney’s motives”);", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "Thompson v. Frank, 313 Ill. App. 3d 661, 664 (2000) (the privilege is “a complete bar to a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "for defamation, regardless of the defendant’s motive or the unreasonableness of his conduct.”). In", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "other words, there is absolute immunity for remarks that are false, spoken in anger, harsh or hurtful.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 cmt. a. (1977) (“These matters are of importance only in", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "determining the amenability of the attorney to the disciplinary power of the court of which he is", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "an officer.”)", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "¶ 21 Murphy argues that O’Shea’s defamatory communication was not shielded by the absolute", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "litigation privilege because O’Shea was referring to a criminal proceeding that did not exist and", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "never materialized. We will assume for purposes of this appeal that O’Shea’s statement was", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "defamatory. According to Murphy, section 586 requires that “O’Shea ‘participate as counsel’ in", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "- 9 -", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "that proceeding” (emphasis added), meaning that O’Shea could invoke the privilege only if she", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "provided representation in the criminal case she described when she warned him that her client", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "was on the verge of filing a civil action concerning his inappropriate access to its data resources.", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "The appellees respond that Murphy misinterprets the privilege and that O’Shea’s e-mail is", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "absolutely protected because it was in anticipation of litigation seeking an injunction.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "¶ 22 Murphy’s argument is not based on the language of the Restatement or any other authority.", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "The Restatement and Illinois law indicate that the attorney’s absolute privilege applies to the e-", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "mail that O’Shea sent to Murphy in anticipation of a civil action about his misuse of ION’s data", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "resources. Murphy has never denied accessing ION’s confidential information without its", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "permission. O’Shea demanded that Murphy stop his misconduct and communicated that if he did", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "not comply with her demands, ION intended to seek immediate injunctive relief. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "§ 586, “[a]n attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.” Restatement (Second)", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "of Torts § 586 (1977). Furthermore, O’Shea’s e-mail is analogous to the demand letters that were", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "sent in various other Illinois disputes, such as Rosenbaum v. Samler, 2025 IL App (1st) 240039.", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "¶ 23 “A demand letter ‘explains [a party’s] legal position in a dispute and requests that the", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "recipient take some action (such as paying money owed), or else risk being sued.’ ” Id. ¶ 59", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024)). After Steven Samler’s mother died at the age", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "of 103, he found out that she had changed her trust to name her financial advisor, Kenneth", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "Rosenbaum, as a contingent beneficiary, which substantially reduced the interests of her three", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "grandchildren. Id., ¶ 1. Samler’s attorneys sent Rosenbaum letters that threatened legal action if", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "he failed to disclaim his interests. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Rosenbaum worked for a large wealth management", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "- 10 -", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "and investment banking firm and his employer’s compliance department read one of the", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "threatening letters before he saw it. Id. ¶ 11. The firm’s legal department also read the letter and", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "forwarded it to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which opened an", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "investigation. Id. ¶ 11. Steven cooperated with the FINRA investigation and he and the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "grandchildren followed through on the threats to sue Rosenbaum for undue influence and financial", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "exploitation. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. FINRA, however, closed its investigation without taking action and", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "Rosenbaum prevailed on summary judgment in the circuit court. Id. Rosenbaum then sued Steven", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "and the grandchildren, based in part on the defamatory letter. Id. ¶ 15. However, the circuit court", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "dismissed the action due to the attorney’s absolute privilege (id. ¶17) and the appellate court", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "affirmed. The letter satisfied the “pertinency requirement” because it related to future litigation", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "and furthered the attorney’s representation of his clients. Id. ¶¶ 56-57. It came within the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "the privilege and was not actionable. Id. ¶ 57.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "¶ 24 Rosenbaum, 2025 IL App (1st) 240039, is just one example and is similar to", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "communications that were found privileged in Atkinson, 369 Ill. App. 3d 828, 833 (an attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "should be able “to settle or resolve cases favorably for his client without resorting to expensive", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "litigation or other judicial processes”); Popp, 313 Ill. App. 3d 638; and Golden, 295 Ill. App. 3d", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "865.", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "¶ 25 In addition, O’Shea’s e-mail to Murphy is similar to the communications in Simon v.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "Oltmann, 98 C 1759, 2001 WL 1035719, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2001), which stated that the", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "recipients had misappropriated proprietary and confidential information and advised them that the", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "letters were pre-litigation offers to settle the case. Cross-claims were filed in federal court,", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "however, and one of the letter recipients argued that the communication was just an attempt to", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "- 11 -", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "extort money and that the client did not intend to sue, as evidenced by the fact that the recipient", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "sued first and the client did not file for seven months and, by then, was no longer represented by", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "the letters’ author. Id. at *7. Applying Illinois law, the district court judge found that “the letters", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "to which [the litigant] so vehemently objects are nothing more than ordinary demand letters. The", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "letters invite cooperation and resolution of the dispute prior to formal litigation, a public interest", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "deserving of protection.” Id. at *8. The court also found that waiting seven months was irrelevant", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "because the “letters make clear that [the client] would file suit if [the recipients] did not pursue a", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "settlement.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "¶ 26 Other jurisdictions have also applied the privilege to attorney demand letters. For instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "a California court applying § 586 and California law contemplated an attorney’s letter which stated", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "that unless the recipient settled, the client intended to sue for violation of federal and state law,", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "fraud, and misrepresentations. Lerette v. Dean Witter Organization, Inc., 60 Cal. App. 3d 573, 575", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "(Ct. App. 1976). The court found that the letter was absolutely privileged and emphasized the value", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "of attempting to avoid litigation:", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "“As any competent attorney is aware, access to the courts is not an end in itself but only", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "one means to achieve satisfaction for a client. If this can be obtained without resort to the", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "courts—even without the filing of a lawsuit—it is incumbent upon the attorney to pursue", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "such a course of action first. [Citation.] It is equally well established legal practice to", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "communicate promptly with a potential adversary, setting out the claims made upon him,", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "urging settlement, and warning of the alternative of judicial action. [Citation.]” Id. at 577.", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "¶ 27 The sentiment was echoed by a New Jersey court’s observation that “the ability of an", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "attorney to communicate freely when a matter is in controversy is just as important in the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "- 12 -", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "preliminary negotiating stage as it is on the day the suit papers are filed with the court.” DeVivo v.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Ascher, 228 N.J. Super. 453, 460 (App. Div. 1988). The court recognized that withholding absolute", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "privilege from attorneys for statements made prior to litigation “might tend to lessen the attorney’s", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "efforts on behalf of his clients” and that an attorney “preparing for litigation must not be inhibited", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "by fear of reprisal in the form of actions for defamation.” Id. at 459. See also Waterloov Gutter", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "Protection Systems Co., Inc. v. Absolute Gutter Protection, L.L.C., 64 F. Supp. 2d 398, 416 (D.N.J.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "1999) (concerning attorney letters that were “nothing more than demand letters, alleging", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "infringement, requesting that the infringement cease, and inviting cooperation and resolution of", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "any disputes before resort to formal suit,” court held that the letters were “within the ambit of the", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "privilege if they are sent to achieve the objects of litigation and if they have some logical relation", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "to the litigation”).", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "¶ 28 O’Shea’s communication came within the attorney litigation privilege because it was", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "preliminary to a proposed judicial action about Murphy’s unauthorized use of ION’s data resources", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "and the contents of the e-mail were pertinent to the anticipated civil suit in which ION would seek", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "injunctive relief. Like the attorney communications we discussed above, O’Shea’s e-mail obtained", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "results for her client without resorting to the courts. She followed the “well established legal", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "practice to communicate promptly with a potential adversary, setting out the claims made upon", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "him, urging settlement, and warning of the alternative of judicial action.” Lerette, 60 Cal. App. 3d", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "at 577).", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "¶ 29 However, Murphy contends that privilege should not apply because O’Shea did not follow", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "through on her threat to file a police report or her statement that his misconduct amounted to a", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "felony and she did not draft an order for injunctive relief. He points out that less than a day after", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "- 13 -", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "he capitulated to her demand e-mail, she confirmed, “Since you provided all the information", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "requested, we will not be filing any charges.” Murphy’s understanding of the privilege is erroneous", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "because it would require O’Shea to file an unwarranted civil complaint and motion for injunctive", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "relief in order to invoke the privilege. His interpretation is not supported by any authority and it is", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "contrary to sound public policy.", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "¶ 30 For these reasons, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately entered against", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Murphy’s defamation count against O’Shea and ION.", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "¶ 31 Murphy’s second argument is that circuit court erred by denying his motion to reconsider", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "the summary judgment ruling. “The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to a court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "attention (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) changes in the law, or (3) errors in the court’s previous", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "application of existing law.” Jones v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 152923,", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "¶ 29. We review the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "¶ 32 Murphy’s motion to reconsider did not meet any of those standards. He argues that the", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "motion identified four errors. The first is that the court applied the privilege to include O’Shea’s", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "statement about felony theft to ION’s owners, Strongin and Wiesman, when they were not her", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "clients in a criminal case. Murphy contended this was contrary to the holding in Golden, 295 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "App. 3d at 872, that a privilege which must be “narrow[ly]” construed did not encompass an", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "attorney’s letter to the client and the client’s spouse. This argument is unpersuasive on appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "because O’Shea’s communication about Murphy’s misuse of data resources was limited to Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "and her clients Strongin and Wiesman. It did not include non-client third parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "- 14 -", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "¶ 33 Murphy also argues it was error for the circuit court to rely on authority which neither party", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "had incorporated into their written briefs, including Rosenbaum, 2025 IL App (1st) 240039;", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Atkinson, 369 Ill. App. 3d 828; and Scarpelli v. McDermott Will & Emery, 2018 IL App (1st)", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "170874. On appeal, Murphy expands this list to include Bedin v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital,", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "2021 IL App (1st) 190723. This is a new argument on appeal and it is not supported by citation to", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "any authority. Either of these deficiencies is reason for us to reject Murphy’s argument. Appellate", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "courts are intended to review matters that have already been ruled upon and cannot review a", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "decision that was never made. Accordingly, arguments that have not been raised in the circuit court", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "are deemed forfeited and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Board of Managers of", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "Eleventh Street Loftominium Ass’n v. Wabash Loftominium, L.L.C., 376 Ill. App. 3d 185, 188", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "(2007). In addition, appellate contentions which are not supported by legal reasoning, citation to", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "authority and citation to the pertinent pages of the record are waived on appeal. Id. We find that", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "Murphy forfeited this argument by failing to bring it in the circuit court and by failing to adequately", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "brief it on appeal. In any event, we can think of no compelling reason why any court should or", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "would limit its consideration to authority cited by the parties. The authority was generally relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "and some of it was pertinent to our own reasoning.", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "¶ 34 Murphy next argues that his motion to reconsider identified certain undisputed or disputed", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "material facts that the circuit court incorporated in its order denying summary judgment on Friday,", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "August 22, 2025, and the circuit court did not state these facts were resolved or were not relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "in its order granting summary judgment on Monday, August 25, 2025. These facts would indicate", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "that O’Shea’s defamatory statement was false. Murphy specifies that the circuit court initially", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "concluded that there were “competing narratives about Murphy’s termination” and a material", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "- 15 -", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "question of fact as to whether he was verbally terminated prior to his written termination on August", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "19, 2022. If Murphy had not been terminated before he was fired in writing, then it would not be", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "wrongful of him to (use someone else’s credentials to) access ION’s data; retain Protected Health", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "Information or PHI; or fail to disclose ION’s passwords for its access to Power BI and Microsoft", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "Azure, and his actions would not be felony theft.", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "¶ 35 The fact dispute that Murphy focuses on has never been material. The privilege immunizes", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "an attorney from liability for publishing defamatory matter regardless of the attorney’s purpose for", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "the publication, belief in its truth or even knowledge of its falsity. Popp, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 642;", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Golden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 870. It has never made a difference whether O’Shea accurately or", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "inaccurately characterized Murphy’s actions when she demanded that he either take certain steps", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "or become the defendant in a civil action and motion for injunctive relief. There is no indication", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "that O’Shea acted in bad faith when she communicated her client’s concerns to Murphy. In fact,", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "ION’s owner, Strongin, confirmed at his deposition that ION wanted to stop Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "inappropriate access to ION’s data and that Strongin discussed the e-mail with O’Shea before she", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "sent it. However, even if Strongin’s deposition had never been taken, O’Shea’s defamatory", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "communication plainly states it is in anticipation of a civil action, which means that Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "defamation claim would be met with the absolute litigation privilege and was ill-conceived.", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "Accordingly, the facts that Murphy identified in his motion for reconsideration of the summary", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "judgment ruling were not material and were not grounds for granting the motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "¶ 36 The fourth claimed error is that the circuit court (1) denied ION and O’Shea’s motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "summary judgment as to Count I on Friday, August 22, 2025, but (2) revisited the summary", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "judgment materials on its own motion, reversed the decision and granted summary judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "- 16 -", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "Count I on Monday, August 25, 2025. Murphy cites Peterson v. Randhava, 313 Ill. App. 3d 1, 13", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "(2000), for the proposition that “a sua sponte ruling deprives a party of notice and an opportunity", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "to raise objections because the court acts on its own and without any warning.” This is a new", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "argument on appeal and is forfeited. Board of Managers of Eleventh Street Loftominium, 376 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "App. 3d at 188.", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "¶ 37 Forfeiture aside, we do not find that any of the concerns expressed in Peterson were", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "implicated by the circuit court’s almost immediate reversal. Peterson, 313 Ill. App. 3d 1. The", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "Peterson plaintiff alleged that his real estate agent schemed to acquire certain property for herself.", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "Id. As part of her scheme, she allegedly overpriced his residence in order to stall its sale and delay", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "him from acquiring funds he needed to buy the other property. Id. at 4. The agent answered the", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "complaint and contended that a certain allegation – the final sales price of his residence – was", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "knowingly false and that the client should be sanctioned. Id. at 5. The circuit court limited the", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "parties’ discovery to that fact and prohibited any discovery into the substantive issues involved in", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "the case. Id. The issue of the purchase price was just one of several fact issues raised by the", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "complaint alleging the agent engaged in self-dealing and duplicitous conduct. Id. at 12.", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "¶ 38 When the parties appeared for hearing on the defendant’s sanctions motion, the circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "court denied it, but granted summary judgment sua sponte, even though no motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "judgment was pending. Id. at 5-6. The appellate court vacated the order, id. at 14, because the", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "client had not been given notice and opportunity to respond to a dispositive motion. Id. at 11. The", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "court pointed out that the two types of motions were substantively different. A motion for sanctions", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "is directed at allegations on the face of the complaint, while a motion for summary judgment “is", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "the procedural equivalent of a trial and constitutes an adjudication of the claim on the merits.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "- 17 -", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "at 9-10. Furthermore, section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "rulings and provides for either party to move for summary judgment, but it does not authorize the", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "circuit court to sua sponte dispose of a case as a matter of law. Id. at 10 (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "1005(c) (West 1998)). The statute allows time for the opposing party to respond to a motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "summary judgment, id., and a local rule specified that a summary judgment motion should not be", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "heard until 10 days after it had been served. Id. at 11 (citing Cook. Co. Cir. Ct. R. 2.1(e) (eff. July", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "1, 1976)). The client was not given that response time and the order which limited the parties’", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "discovery efforts hampered his opportunity to respond to the disposition of his entire case. Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "other allegations of self-dealing and duplicitous conduct were not argued by the parties or", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "addressed by the sua sponte ruling. Id. at 12. It was error for the circuit court to transform the", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "sanction motion into a summary judgment motion. Id. at 14.", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "¶ 39 In contrast, there was extensive discovery in Murphy’s claims against O’Shea and ION,", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "including interrogatories, document production, and a half-dozen depositions. The hearing was", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "scheduled well in advance. The parties not only filed written briefs, they filed supplemental briefs", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "and made oral arguments. The procedure that was followed conformed with the statute and local", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "rule governing summary judgment. The record shows that there was notice and opportunity to be", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "heard on all of the substantive issues that Murphy raised in his amended complaint. On a Friday,", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "the trial judge denied summary judgment on the defamation count, but upon further reflection over", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "the weekend, recognized that the ruling was incorrect, and on the following Monday, entered a", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "contrary order that was consistent with the facts and the law. Murphy’s action was fully and fairly", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "adjudicated and what occurred bears no resemblance to the Peterson matter. Peterson, 313 Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "- 18 -", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "App. 3d 1. Therefore, if Murphy had not forfeited his Peterson-based argument by failing to raise", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "it on a timely basis, we would reject it on the merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "¶ 40 Murphy has not shown that his motion to reconsider should have been granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "¶ 41 Murphy’s last argument concerns his second motion to reconsider summary judgment, in", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "which he also sought leave to replead. He explains that this successive motion provided the court", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "with exhibits that were not previously filed, including some text messages he exchanged with", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "Terris Murphy, correspondence about obtaining a hearing transcript, handwritten notes which he", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "took during the hearing, and a four-page summary or outline of his proposed second amended", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "complaint. Murphy points out that the circuit court denied the motion in just two sentences and did", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "not address the substance of his argument or whether his proposed new pleading would cure any", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "defect. He contends this perfunctory order demonstrates an abuse of discretion which should be", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "remedied by our reversal and remand with instructions to address the successive motion on the", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "¶ 42 We reject this argument because Murphy should not have filed a successive motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "vacate the summary judgment order. A successive postjudgment motion is one that requests", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "reconsideration after the first postjudgment motion is denied. Owens v. Berkshire Nursing & Rehab", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "Center, LLC, 2026 IL App (1st) 241662, ¶ 25. Murphy’s motion did exactly that–it asked the court", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "to vacate its summary judgment order and reconsider the denial of the first postjudgment motion", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "to vacate. Murphy argued that granting the successive motion would be fair and allow the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "to avoid “unnecessary appellate proceedings.”", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "¶ 43 “There is no provision in the [Code of Civil Procedure] or the supreme court rules which", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "permits a losing litigant to return to the trial court indefinitely, hoping for a change of heart or a", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "1-25-2283", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "- 19 -", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "more sympathetic judge.” Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill. 2d 253, 259 (1981). There is no section of the", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "Code of Civil Procedure that authorizes successive postjudgment motions. Furthermore, Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "Court Rule 274 prohibits successive postjudgment motions by providing that any party “may make", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "only one postjudgment motion directed at a judgment order that is otherwise final and appealable.”", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Ill. S. Ct. R. 274 (eff. July 1, 2019). In addition, supreme court precedent emphatically states that", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "a circuit court should not grant a successive postjudgment motion. See Sears, 85 Ill. 2d at 258;", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "Royal Oak Condominium Ass’n v. Stevenson, 2025 IL App (1st) 242317, ¶ 39 (“The unmistakable", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "holding of Sears is that the circuit court loses jurisdiction over a final judgment once it denies the", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "timely postjudgment motion directed at that final judgment.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "¶ 44 For these reasons, it was not an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to deny Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "second motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "¶ 45 The appellant has not identified any errors in the judgment on appeal. Accordingly, we", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "affirm the judgment of the circuit court.", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "¶ 46 Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_465" } ], "word_count": 5738, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "2765f5f6e34883ad29b05c234b5007cf5fba450b3af02136ca49fd90a94e6523", "source_url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/a07eaf80-07e4-4d92-968a-fb610b1dd9c1/file", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T07:16:41.012+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "2765f5f6e34883ad29b05c234b5007cf5fba450b3af02136ca49fd90a94e6523", "recomputed_sha256": "2765f5f6e34883ad29b05c234b5007cf5fba450b3af02136ca49fd90a94e6523", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-08T12:42:07.909Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:452d8146a6c2579623bcf122d934981073ea21c75e4f10167ff1028e64055b40", "version": "legal-2026-10-08", "expires": "2026-10-09T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-08+legal-2026-10-08+2026-10-08T12:22:59", "content_hash": "sha256:452d8146a6c2579623bcf122d934981073ea21c75e4f10167ff1028e64055b40", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-08T13:42:08.555Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-1-25-2283-2026-08-31", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }